President Obama in the White House briefing room Thursday defended the decision to overrule the FDA on the "morning after pill" saying, "As the father of two daughters, I think it is important for us to make sure that we apply some common sense to various rules when it comes to over-the-counter medicine."

The White House (CNN) –President Obama endorsed his administration’s decision to keep in place age restrictions on the purchase of Plan B, the so-called "morning after pill", without a prescription.

"I did not get involved in the process," Obama said when asked if he personally intervened in the matter. "This was a decision that was made by Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of HHS."

Sebelius announced the move on Wednesday, drawing applause from conservatives and ire from liberals and women’s health advocates. Even some in the president's own administration privately complained that politics had trumped science.

The Food and Drug Administration contends Plan B is safe and effective for women of all ages, but in a rare move, Sebelius overruled the agency on its decision to make the drug available over the counter, without age restrictions.

"As the father of two daughters, I think it is important for us to make sure that we apply some common sense to various rules when it comes to over-the-counter medicine," the president said. "The reason Kathleen made this decision was she could not be confident that a 10-year-old or an 11-year-old go into a drugstore, should be able - alongside bubble gum or batteries - be able to buy a medication that potentially, if not used properly, could end up having an adverse effect."

The override of the FDA's decision means current restrictions on Plan B will stand. Women 17 years and older may purchase the pill without a prescription. Those 16 years and younger need a prescription.

Plan B is marketed as a back-up birth control method, similar to a heavy dose of the birth control pill, only it can be taken up to 72 hours after intercourse to prevent pregnancy. In most cases, according to the FDA, it prevents the release of an egg from the ovary. It may also stop fertilization of an egg. Because of its ability to stop a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus, some say the pill is a form of abortion.

"It is surely not a scientific decision," says Susan Wood, who resigned as the FDA’s Director of the Office of Women's Health in 2005 in protest to the restrictions on Plan B supported by the Bush administration. "The secretary's rationale is very similar to the one used in the previous administration to block Plan B from going over-the-counter. It is not supported by data."

Had the FDA eliminated the age restriction, Plan B could have been available in drug stores much like aspirin or cough medicine. But it would have left President Obama open to criticism from Republican opponents during his fight for re-election.

With the age restriction intact, Plan B is expected to stay behind the pharmacy counters to be dispensed only by pharmacists. Critics like Wood say that makes it inconvenient to access for women who are permitted to purchase the drug.

"It needs to be taken right away to be effective and to help young teens or older women there need to be no barriers to access to this very safe product," Wood told CNN.

President Obama pointed repeatedly to concerns about young teens and pre-teens purchasing the medication and using it improperly. "I think most parents would probably feel the same way," he told reporters.

soundoff(100 Responses)

No he doesn't. In spite of what the writer in this article says, it is not about politics. President Obama has always supported women's rights to choose when it comes to their reproductive health. However, this is not about women, it's about underage GIRLS using a drug that can potentially cause harm to their reproductive health in the long run if not used properly. Obama isn't even saying that they can't use it at all, they must have a prescription and be under supervison when using it.

Think about it, how would you feel if your 9 (yes they are having sex that young), 10 or 11 year old going behind your
back and buying a drug that they don't understand how to use?

December 8, 2011 at 8:04 pm |

Howard

obama will use anybody, or any issue, in an attempt to garner self-serving political gain ...

Obama has taken credit so many times, and bragged so much, about the killing of Bin Laden, which was accomplished thanks to the CIA and the SEALS ... it's nauseating ... why, it's almost as if
obama thinks he has actually accomplished something worthy of ... oh say, the Nobel Prize !!!

December 9, 2011 at 1:56 pm |

youloze

@ Howard who do think gives the orders jack azz? There is no raid on that compound inside Pakistan without the President's order! Obvoiusly you know nothing about a chain of command or the military.Just looking for another reason to hate.

December 9, 2011 at 2:51 pm |

Dia

Except that you're wrong. Less than 1% of teen girls 11 and under are sexually active.

And as far as harmful, this drug is substantially less harmful than Tylenol or Sudafed (both of which are substantially cheaper and available OTC as well).

Somehow, I can't see a lot of 11 year old children walking into a Walgreens and shelling out $50 for emergency contraception to use it improperly. Seriously now.

However, a number of 16 year old girls most certainly are sexually active and MAY NEED access to this in a timely manner.

Furthermore, the FDA studies demonstrated that girls under 17 were more than capable of understanding both what the drug was for and how to use it properly. That was part of their decision-making process before agreeing that this should be released OTC for women under 17.

Neither President Obama NOR Kathleen Sebelius are medical doctors. This is a medical decision based in medical science - something neither of those two understand. And yes, if their logic is that this is protecting children from inadvertently harming themselves by improperly using an OTC drug - then they have zero understanding of the science behind it.

And if it is a political move (which it most certainly is) then it's at the expense of the health of young girls for whom carrying a baby to term or having an abortion is ABSOLUTELY a threat to their health (and reproductive health).

December 10, 2011 at 6:05 pm |

Adam

Strictly speaking, we are not talking about women's reproductive health, we are talking about girls' reproductive health. Those who are underage need to have a parent or guardian helping them to make this very important decision.

December 8, 2011 at 10:12 pm |

Mike

As a parent of a young girl, I would hope that she would go to my wife or me if she was pregnant? What if she doesn't? What if she waits a few days or even weeks because she can't buy the morning after pill without our approval? Many experts have stated the pill is safe for younger girls. Only politics prevents its availability.

December 9, 2011 at 1:22 pm |

ISLAMBAMA

Don't worry no one of his race will consume the pill.

December 8, 2011 at 10:37 pm |

youloze

What is his race? Last I knew he's bi-racial? So bi-racial women won't take the pill, is that what you're saying, if so prove it! Gather your data and educate us.

December 9, 2011 at 2:57 pm |

jean2009

Moron.

December 9, 2011 at 7:43 pm |

mike tampa

You are a racist idiot!

December 12, 2011 at 12:50 pm |

Vlad

So true. He plays politics when it affects a personal emotional cord or his own career. Otherwise he's probably willing to sell his own wife down river if it would further his personal aims. This is why I think he's ten times more insidious of a president than Geroge Bush (II). Mr. Bush did not possess the evaluative intellectual capacaity to judge the amorality of many of his own decisions; however, Mr. Obama does. Mr. Obama had done nothing for Chicago, does not protect government workers, and doesn't involve in important issues such as the Ntional Debt – all out some pseudo moral high ground. He would involve himself if the rewards were high enough and this is what makes him an evil man.

December 9, 2011 at 7:03 am |

youloze

Vlad maybe you should direct your compliants to your mayor and congress person. The president deals with matters of the entire country not just Chicago.

December 9, 2011 at 2:08 pm |

Jim

Based on what?! Can you list a single fact to support a single allegation here? If not, dickless coward.

He is absolutely correct no person under the lagal age of consent should have the purchasing power for this bill regaurdless of what state they're from.. Anyone that feels differently must not have daughters or moral values. Cookies, candy, morning after pill on the same aisle, ridiculous!

December 9, 2011 at 2:03 pm |

youloze

Susan you are a bleeping liar. He does not try to control what women to their bodies like the repukes! I can't speak for the president buy i'm sure he's pro choice! The repukes wanna tell raped or incested women that can't have abortions if they become preganant. Their selling point she's having a beautiful bundle of joy with her father or uncle or maybe she's expecting but doesn't know the guy's name but they will be one big happy family once the DNA confirms the rapist identity! A woman's choice is between herself and her god, not man!

December 9, 2011 at 2:42 pm |

Joel

Election politics trump both science and reproductive rights. I don't see why anyone is surprised. Any politician from either side of the isle would have done the same. Obama and Bush, republican and democrat, they are just different sides of the same coin.

December 9, 2011 at 5:14 pm |

jean2009

As a great-grandmother I am glad the president took this reasonable approach. There are some things adults should be able to buy OTC and some things children should not. For the sake of reason, a person need to have reached adult age and provide age ID before they are allowed to purchase cigarettes and alcoholic beverages.... in most states. Why should a child be able to purchase any substance that could do as much, if not more harm if used incorrectly?

And no C-Lo, I don't think this should be an item that requires a prescription, just the proper age ID will do.

December 9, 2011 at 7:37 pm |

Howard

CNN and the liberal democrats are scared to death that Newt might run against obama. Even the biased media, and a BILLION dollars would not keep obama from looking like a complete fool, once Newt got done with him. Obama, the liberal's sacred cow, has spewed way too much B.S. ... and, the American people are beginning to wake up to how much B.O. stinks !!!

December 9, 2011 at 9:16 pm |

jean2009

The only one Newtie has even done in is himself. Why is it most of the people who know him are not for him?
Those were not ringing endorsements from fellow Rethugliklans Jim Talent, John Sununu and Tom Coburn.

December 10, 2011 at 12:16 pm |

C-Lo

Then why not the same for "the pill" or any of a miriade of other prescriptions. What about the uneducated "consumer" of this who decides she is going to use it weekly after her Friday night indescretions with her boyfriend, husband, whomever, instead of normal "proper" protection? I cannot immagine long-term, repeated exposure could be healthy AT ALL to a woman's health, any more than steroids, testosterone or other hormones are healthy for the men who "use" them all of which are by prescription and used under a doctor's supervision (including "the pill")

Well would you look at that, I actually sound more concerned with women's health than you are, Jean. :-)

December 12, 2011 at 12:25 pm |

Howard

GREAT GRAND MOTHERS WITH DEMENTIA ARE EASILY FOOLED, BY CHARLATANS, LIKE barack obama !!!

December 12, 2011 at 2:26 pm |

1FreeWorld

Q: What area is the worst area for a Black Child within the USA?

A: In the Black Child's Mother's Womb!

Watch this!

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGuNou13-D8&w=640&h=360]

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGuNou13-D8&w=640&h=390]

December 9, 2011 at 11:00 pm |

jersey3038

Obama is doing quite well considering the congress he has to deal with. Yes I know in the begining he had his own congress but he was trying to build a relationship with the GOP instead of bullying them. Big mistake I know. Both parties are horrible I know. It kills me that so many people are far left or far right. Not much help for us here in the middle.

December 10, 2011 at 8:51 am |

Jim

Really? Name one fact to support that statement. A fact now, not a lie you got off Faux news, but a real fact. Just one will do.

December 11, 2011 at 2:37 pm |

1FreeWorld

Jim,

Let us say, for example that you had a Mentally Challenged Bowler that throws a 300 game,
as a
brother,
sister,
aunt, uncle,
child, etc.

Let us say, I can bowl as well as Derr PRESIDENT and Most-EXCELLENT COMMUNICATOR, Obama.

Now let's say,
Derr PRESIDENT and Most-EXCELLENT COMMUNICATOR
was on a Nationally Broadcasted TV show,
and told ALL THE WORLD that
he Bowls like a RETARD.

December 11, 2011 at 7:04 pm |

1FreeWorld

If I said, "I can bowl like the
Most-EXCELLENT COMMUNICATOR
President of the 57 States of America,,,

Did I just say I bowl like a Retard
by Substitution???

NOW THAT IS A GOOD QUESTION!

December 11, 2011 at 7:05 pm |

Cody

I agree it should have age restrictions. If underaged girls want it, they need to go to their parents and go from there. As a parent, I do not want my child to be able to do this without my knowledge. Sorry kiddos. Looks like you are going to continue to be busted.

December 8, 2011 at 7:39 pm |

Henry Miller

Why do you presume that every other young woman must have her liberties infringed upon just because you want to have a particular relationship with your daughter? Such arrogance!

December 8, 2011 at 8:44 pm |

1FreeWorld

Hey Henry,,,

I am with you!

Make sure all the Young Ladies watch the following:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fUPDSpCcdg&w=640&h=390]

Just to make sure the Little Ladies are protected from those that want to restrain there life choices!

December 8, 2011 at 9:44 pm |

1FreeWorld

Ooops,,,

THEIR!!!!!

I used the wrong word,,, Ooops,, I used "there"

Now it might be better explained in the following:

I hope the Black Woman here can defend herself in the case where some young male tries to force her to get the morning after pill!

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsVCHE7ayPE&w=640&h=390]

No Violence here!

December 8, 2011 at 9:52 pm |

Tom from Canonsburg

Actually Henry, he is right. It is funny the double standard that we have as far as pregnancy is concerned. A child and that's what they are untill they are 18, cannot get a broken bone fixed without a parent or guardian consent. They are considered as not mature enough to be responsible. Some are, but most are not. I support a woman's right to choose, but I do not support a female child's right to bypass the parent in the case of abortion, the pill or this pill. In each of these cases there are the possibilities that some complication can occur. Of course in that case the parent would be held responsible.

December 9, 2011 at 12:58 pm |

ISLAMBAMA

Thrump ask no brain to your debate.

December 8, 2011 at 8:03 pm |

Bigger problems ahead

I'm just glad this drug is available in non-prescription form and hopefully those that need it will now know that. This isn't the only drug with senseless restrictions.

But that said, Susan has a point – I am very worried that the wimp-in-chief will back down from covering birth control at no cost under the new health plan. She is right, Obama doesn't stand for women – but then he doesn't stand up for anyone so you can't say he discriminates.

December 8, 2011 at 8:10 pm |

Doyle Wiley, MI

I agree with the president, parents should be aware of what drugs their under age 18 children are taking.

There is no "one size fits all" answer but yours might fit the most. My point is, Just try to murder people in my presents. I have the ability to stop that criminal. Sad that so many people want lawabiding citizens to be defenceless victims. Support the NRA. They support you.

December 10, 2011 at 9:16 am |

Dia

Except, Doyle, this drug can be purchased at 17.

December 10, 2011 at 6:18 pm |

george of the jungle

sounds like common sense to me. Just what are you talking about susan.?

December 8, 2011 at 8:17 pm |

yvette

Our resident is making the best judgesments he can, pray for him

December 8, 2011 at 8:22 pm |

Sheila

I'm not sure why people are acting as if the President is banning the drug completely as an OTC. He is simply putting an age-restriction to it. How does doing so interfere with Science? I don't understand. If y underage child daughter were to ever need to use it, I would be responsible for getting it for her. Why is that such a horrible thing for any parent to expect?

December 8, 2011 at 8:25 pm |

youloze

They just want another reason to hate Obama. Senseless individuals.. There is an age restriction on Sudafed cold and sinus but its a problem to place an age restriction on the morning after pill!!!! Where were these people raised?

December 9, 2011 at 2:15 pm |

Henry Miller

"This was a decision that was made by Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of HHS."

And who elected Kathleen Sebelius to anything? And where in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to tell people what they may or may not ingest, inject, or inhale into their own bodies?

December 8, 2011 at 8:41 pm |

Trace

Henry Miller,

I know you have the libertarian "lonely party for the few thing" going...but every president since the turn of the century has been able to appoint cabinet members. Should we now say that President Obama has been violating the constitution because of your rather strange rhetorical question (?)

December 9, 2011 at 12:19 pm |

Claire

Most kids are afraid to go to their parents, especially in regards to this type of thing. It seems to me that Obama is ignoring the fact that this could cause more teen (unwanted) pregnancies.

December 8, 2011 at 9:42 pm |

steveo

Claire, you have a point but what these kids should be afraid of are STDs, pregnancies in underdeveloped wombs, and potentially dangerous drugs. God knows we seem to be deathly afraid of personal responsibility!

December 9, 2011 at 10:08 am |

Dia

Yeah, it'd be nice if we had a comprehensive and reasonable sexual education system in this country.

Oops.

December 10, 2011 at 6:19 pm |

jean2009

Steveo in some ways I agree, but, the undeveloped brain of a young person does not always fit into the category of being adult or responsible.

December 12, 2011 at 11:45 am |

steveo

Jean2009,

My question is where are the parents in all of this? I understand 13 and 14 years old rarely understand the severity of consequences but parents have let these kids down and because of that, the government now has to step into that role. I do have to say, I am in agreement with the President on this issue!

December 12, 2011 at 11:55 am |

youloze

Parents need to address these issues with their kids and maybe the kids won't be afraid to talk to them about these types of topics. If a child is afraid to talk to their parents, the parents have failed that child..bottom line

December 9, 2011 at 3:08 pm |

youloze

Ever heard of a condom or birth control that's taken once a day or just maybe abstinence!

December 9, 2011 at 3:10 pm |

1FreeWorld

I am with the 95%'ers!

Every one of the 95 Percenters!!!!

I do not want the 3%'ers on the OWS's Radar... to see this,,,

DOWN TWINKELS (Times 7)!!!!!

Just a thought,,, Down Twinkles in the Christmas Season????

Protect your FAMILY!

Make sure that those that love you will be there to Help you!

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=375329

December 8, 2011 at 10:15 pm |

Jerry

Meddle, meddle and then meddle some more! Oh well, I am guessing that's the only thing this whole clueless administration has time for. I mean besides campaigning on the taxpayer dime, I meant pennies; pennies.

America, remember 2012.

December 9, 2011 at 6:33 am |

youloze

Every president has campaigned on the tax payer's dime..So what are you saying exactly?

December 9, 2011 at 2:19 pm |

Lou

Plan B? What ever happened to Plan A? Like talking to your teenager about the ramifications about teenage pregnancy? Seems kinda screwy that a parent would have to resort to going to the pharmacy to purchase birth control just because their kid can't control herself from keeping her legs closed and/or practice safe sex. Also, wouldn't you think that if you started feeding your child birth control it would cause her to go out and have unprotected sex? That's the problem nowadays, too many parents being too soft. Whatever happened to "if you go out and get pregnant, guess what, you gotta deal with it."

December 9, 2011 at 9:16 am |

Joi Gibson

I'm just not sure I see what is wrong with this decision. Something does not seem right about a 10, 11, 12, 13, etc. year old being able to go to purchase the morning-after pill. It does seem like a matter of common sense. Just because this decision was made does not by any stretch of the imagination mean the President is against women's right, that's absurd. Maybe he was speaking as a father-is that so wrong.

OBAMA/BIIDEN 2012?

December 9, 2011 at 9:19 am |

M-AZ Independent

I think Secretary Sebelius made the right decision...people we need to be balanced. There is nothing about her decision that suggests that she or the President are against a woman's right to choose, but we are talking about the ability for children to obtain a very powerful drug without parental consent. All an individual has to do is think about the expectations that they have for protecting their own children. As far as I am concerned, the decision made is a no brainer, and need not be politicized by either side.

December 9, 2011 at 9:53 am |

Dia

You know children can buy plenty of powerful drugs OTC without parental consent.

In fact, until just a few years ago they could make methamphetamine without parental consent...

Your point? And it's not as if kids were going to be taking this recreationally - the $50 price tag isn't exactly "bubblegum and batteries".

December 10, 2011 at 6:20 pm |

jean2009

Agreed...since scientist have discovered that the human brain does not mature until the mid-20's having age restrictions makes good sense.

December 11, 2011 at 6:12 pm |

Howard

They should also have age restrictions for great grandmothers with DEMENTIA.

December 12, 2011 at 2:23 pm |

C-Lo

First, I agree with the decision, and wish it was still a prescription not OTC–why can you get this OTC but not regular birth control pills? Maybe because of the potential side effects? We're not talking about asprin here.

That being said, I can't help but wonder about the hypocracy of the libs here who insist on seatbelt laws, booster seats, limiting choice of what we eat, etc, etc, etc, all in the name of "protecting our youth," then throw a tantrum about limiting access (not eliminating) to a drug used to "offset" dangerous behaviour that has higher than average potential for life altering/ending side effects. So, don't let a 15 year old decide what they want to eat, but do let them decide to self medicate?

While I admit ignorance on the effects of long term exposure, I am sure they cannot be good, and wonder what would have happened with the promiscuous teen who uses this pill twice a week over a year...who would be responsible for her long term health problems then? The manufacterer, store, gov't? Because we know we couldn't blame her, right?

December 9, 2011 at 10:01 am |

Trace

@C-Lo,

Thank You for the a well-reasoned post. I wish we could get simple coherence, intelligence and frank discussions on these articles...but far too often the trolls need to do their usual childish spitball throwing thingy. But at least we have posts from thoughtful people like yourself to break up the monotagny...(and on occasion my other moderate friend / Steveo)

December 9, 2011 at 10:20 am |

steveo

Trace,

"On occassion" is better than "never". I'll take it! Merry Christmas to you and yours!

December 9, 2011 at 10:24 am |

C-Lo

Thanks Trace. I honestly try to make coherent points, and support my arguments. I agree with you and wish there was better opportunity to debate without a lot of the garbage, but I'd rather see garbage than deal with the greater evil of censorship!

Seveo, good to "see" you too. I'm just dropping in–will be pretty slammed until Feb. but still try to check in on occasion to see what's being said.

If not before, Merry Christmas and Happy Hannukah and Grand Festivus to all (I am an equal opportunity celebrator).

December 9, 2011 at 12:20 pm |

jean2009

Since we were carrying on a discussion on another link that the moderator has quit updating. This may be off topic for this link, but here goes anyway.

Well Steveo good question; but whether you agree or not there is something to be said for home ownership. Plus, there is something to be said for the government better regulating entities that make housing loans. Therein is the problem.

If we want to look at the history of bailouts. Or, in particular the bailout of Freddie and Fannie September 7, 2008 for $400 Billion; the closest comparison of bailout cost, for the taxpayer, was the Saving and Loan bailout 1989 (also mortgage related) that amount was $289.3 Billion. Most of the failed Savings & Loans were in the state of Texas, and most of the activity for the savings and loan bailout could be called criminal. Strange both happened during a Bush presidency, and both due to the desire of Republicans to erode regulations. My personal opinion is red flags should appear when elected officials want to deregulate industries that handle other peoples’ money.

Again C-Lo/Steveo you are wrong, being a private company doesn't necessarily mean that a business wouldn't be bailed out by the government; that has happened many times during history: Penn Central Railroad 1970, Lockheed Martin, New York City 1975 during the Ford Administration; The Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company during the Reagan Administration. In many cases those private businesses, plus New York City have over time repaid the taxpayers’ loan with interest.

Between 2001 and 2008 we had the bailout of: the Airline Industry; Bear Stearn; Fanny Mae; AIG; the Auto Industry; TARP; Citigroup; and Bank of America.
You can go to: http://www.propublica.org and read The History of U. S. Gov't Bailouts
Or go to http://www.scribd.com for: History of Government Bailouts of Big Business
Or, go to pre-1970 bailouts. The first being the Panic of 1792 when the federal government took on the costs incurred by states during the Revolution to the tune of $18 Million raising the national debt to $65 Million under G Washington...that was due to speculators flocking to those securities….sound familiar? I’m sure comparatively $65 Million was considered a huge sum in 1792. That is posted under...
Government Bailouts A U. S. Tradition Dating to Hamilton , by Michael Phillips 9/20/2008 @ online.wsj.com

Many times the government gets it right when unregulated businesses haven’t.

Also I would suggest looking at the graph of bailouts since 1970 at: activerain.com titled: Unbelievable Graph Comparing Government Bailouts Since 1970.
Ken Cook sums it up very well....”no one person, or group did this to us we did it to ourselves.” Basically it is our own fault for allowing greed to rule without adequate regulations. Presently, we find that lack of government oversight has not only created problems here, but has created the same types of financial difficulties in many countries around the globe.

I liked the quote of Alex J. Pollack – “If you would like an empirical law of government behavior, it is that in a panic or threatened financial collapse, governments intervene—every government, every party, every country, every time.” Having been born in the middle of the depression, and living through the Reagan years I can attest to that. Between 1986 and 1995 – 3,234 savings and loan banks went belly up due to unregulated greed, which played havoc with the building industry.

December 12, 2011 at 11:30 am |

steveo

Jean2009,

I'll give credit where credit is due. That was a great reply. My issue is as long as these companies treat the taxpayer as a safety net, they will still keep gambling and taking ridiculous risks and then will turn around with their hands out and a dumb look on their faces. We keep removing consequences and they wil NEVER learn! I am in full agreement that home ownership is a great thing BUT only if it can be afforded!

As for Freddie and Fannie, there is something truly distatsteful when these guys gave out bonuses and at the same time KNEW they were failing and needed a bail out. Congress really needs to grow a pair and force these knuckle heads to return every dime of bonus payout.

I know there are those who lost their jobs and have run into difficult times. I am not talking about them. I am addressing those whose eyes were bigger than their budgets and those who simply KNEW they could not afford a home without unorthodoxed funding tricks! I am also talking about the greed that Congress and bank CEOs displayed by severely dumbing down the loan process. Now the pendulum has swung the other way as folks who can actually afford a home can't get the funding frrom teh very same banks who eagerly accepted taxpayer funding!

December 12, 2011 at 1:42 pm |

C-Lo

Jean–First, thank you for keeping this "between the lines." If you want to hurl insults at Howard et.al. no problem, but it makes it a lot easier to debate the topics in this manner. I am truly appreciative.

That being said, take a look at all the industries you talk about being bailed out and the one thing they have in common–HEAVY gov't "oversight," regulations and intervention, including (but not mentioned) food producers, Oil and alternative energies. Take a look, then at those industries not on the list, technology, Intelectual property, basic manufactering, etc. Fewer regulations, subsidies, requirements etc. Let the good ones prosper, the poor ones fail. The market and companies determine their business models. Let individuals decide what sectors need and DESERVE funding/investments. Stop fleecing the public for pet projects of each and every of the 500+ lawmakers. They are there to oversee/regulate, not to steal money from you and me to fund their buddies at B of A, Solyndra, BP, GM, GE...

It just blows me away that people put SO much trust in a gov't that has shown time and again it's inability to fund and manage large scale projects. I guess it's partly because business projects more than 10 years out, and can be held responsible for actions for decades, where the gov't only looks 10 yrs down the road, and what happens after that is someone else's problem.

December 12, 2011 at 2:30 pm |

jean2009

@ Steveo and C-Lo I understand you are saying we the tax payer can stop subsidizing big oil on a daily basis; to the tune of billions. Remember that when the pipeline vote comes up.

December 13, 2011 at 9:38 am |

steveo

Jean2009,

Why stop there? Why is the government paying farmers not to plant? That little action keeps food prices artificially high and cost billions! I noticed you only mentioned oil! Why not add alternate energy into the mix?

December 13, 2011 at 9:50 am |

jean2009

Steveo You forget the home was affordable when the person purchased it; and it would have remained affordable if they had continued to have a job, the same pay, or good health; or if the interest rate or monthly payment had not ballooned. There are those who needed to relocate to a new job just when home values eroded to the point that the house they are trying to sell is no longer worth what it was when they bought it.
The five most frequent reasons that foreclosures happen is not because the person couldn't afford the home at the time it was purchased.
1. Job loss
2. Unexpected illness resulting in uninsured major medical expenses.
3. Adjustable rate mortgages that ballooned out of control in a market when the buyer's equity is not in ratio to what it was when the house was purchased. Leaving them in the situation of not being able to refinance.
4. Death of the spouse who provided the largest income
5. Divorce

Your view of the total situation is far to simplistic. Something I find endemic to far too many on the far right.

December 13, 2011 at 10:08 am |

C-Lo

Jean:
you said "Steveo You forget the home was affordable when the person purchased it; and it would have remained affordable if they had continued to have a job, the same pay, or good health; or if the interest rate or monthly payment had not ballooned."

To which I say "oh, no, no, no." Why have we not seen forclosure issues like this in past economic downturns? This time around was VERY different in terms of "home affordability" due in large part to Bush's initiative of affordable home ownership for all (a take on a chicken in every pot and car in every garage). My wife has been underwriting mortgages for nearly 30 years, and in mid 2000's said to me that she couldn't understand how these loans were being created and approved. Traditionally you needed 20% down and a 30-35% debt/income ratio. With this push by Bush, Frank, Dodd, et.al. we saw 100-103% LTV's, no doc (liar) loans, Negative amoritization loans (people paying less than the interest owed each month) 50%+ debt/income ratios and, like you mentioned balloon loans. NO they could NOT afford these loans/homes, but the gov't insisted on providing programs for these people. So to offset the risk the banks were taking on, they invented the securitization of the loans to pass off this forced risk.

Yes, there was greed–by EVERYONE including the new homeowners who saw a low payment they could afford at the time, but ignored the longterm costs. Were they properly presented with those risks? In a lot of cases maybe not, but short of outright fraud, they had the opportunity to read through the contracts and make a decision, but all they looked at was the initial low payments. They also have a responsibility to have money set aside for emergencies, yet take a look at the savings rates of the US until recently. They were actually NEGATIVE. No, I'm not ignoring the effects of the long term unemployed, but the fact is MANY of these loans (again sanctioned by gov't) collapsed due as much to homeowner greed as company greed. Had there been 20% put down on the home to begin with, people would have been more reluctant to walk away, home prices would not have inflated as quickly and the collapse in the market would not have been as drastic.

If the gov't is going to force me to take on a risk, I am, as a prudent individual, going to look for ways to offset that risk or put it on the backs of others (hence, insurance or in this case securitization). This crisis was brought on by another failure of big gov't programs in the name of "equality." In this case spearheaded by a conservative Democrat named George W. Bush.

December 13, 2011 at 11:22 am |

steveo

Jean20089,

This is what I said and when I said it
know there are those who lost their jobs and have run into difficult times. I am not talking about them. I am addressing those whose eyes were bigger than their budgets and those who simply KNEW they could not afford a home without unorthodoxed funding tricks! I am also talking about the greed that Congress and bank CEOs displayed by severely dumbing down the loan process. Now the pendulum has swung the other way as folks who can actually afford a home can't get the funding frrom teh very same banks who eagerly accepted taxpayer funding!

December 12, 2011 at 1:42 pm |

As you can see I was not talking about those who have issues in their lives that changed their circumstances

"I know there are those who lost their jobs and have run into difficult times. I am not talking about them".

These are those I was talking about:

"I am addressing those whose eyes were bigger than their budgets and those who simply KNEW they could not afford a home without unorthodoxed funding tricks".

Below I said something about "mortage trickery", I did not use that term in my original post, I apologize for that but that does not change the fact you have used "creative editing to misrepresent me.

December 13, 2011 at 1:07 pm |

steveo

Jean20089,

This is what I said and when I said it
know there are those who lost their jobs and have run into difficult times. I am not talking about them. I am addressing those whose eyes were bigger than their budgets and those who simply KNEW they could not afford a home without unorthodoxed funding tricks! I am also talking about the greed that Congress and bank CEOs displayed by severely dumbing down the loan process. Now the pendulum has swung the other way as folks who can actually afford a home can't get the funding frrom teh very same banks who eagerly accepted taxpayer funding!

December 12, 2011 at 1:42 pm |

As you can see I was not talking about those who have issues in their lives that changed their circ-umstances

"I know there are those who lost their jobs and have run into difficult times. I am not talking about them".

These are those I was talking about:

"I am addressing those whose eyes were bigger than their budgets and those who simply KNEW they could not afford a home without unorthodoxed funding tricks".

Below I said something about "mortage trickery", I did not use that term in my original post, I apologize for that but that does not change the fact you have used "creative editing to misrepresent me.

December 13, 2011 at 1:47 pm |

Dia

But this isn't a "long-term" drug. It's a use once because you made a mistake (because you have a jerk for a boyfriend or the public education sex ed curriculum failed you).

The FDA did lots of testing on this that found it to be safe in girls 17 and under, and moreover that they understood how to use this drug properly and responsibly.

December 10, 2011 at 6:24 pm |

C-Lo

Dia–that's the point. Americans seem to always look for the quick fix instead of the responsible, preventative choices. If I believed that girls would be responsible enough to use this ONLY in the event of EMERGENCY contraception, this may be a (slightly) different discussion. But let's be truthful here. Who really believes that a child making the irrational decisions of unprotected s-e-x are going to make the responsible decision of only using this occationally. By putting this in the prescription status for them, will also force them to talk to a healthcare professional about more responsible ways to approach their "fun" that they may not (probably are not) getting from home or school.

Again, can someone tell me why it's ok for the gov't to regulate what we eat but not hormone overloads for 13 year olds to terminate potential pregnancies.

Additionally, what about the uninformed girl who finds out 3 or 4 months later that she's pregnant, or at that point decides to end a pregnancy and tries to use this for a "home abortion?" What are the dangers there? I don't think there are too many on this post who disagree, but for those who do, will you answer these concerns?

December 12, 2011 at 2:08 pm |

Handofdoom

18-year-old , I see using the pill , but any one unber 18 ," NO way at all !

December 9, 2011 at 11:32 am |

Yomi Olalere

If you don't agree with this, then I wonder what you would ever agree with. Those little girls should be running after their books and developing their skillful talent; not running after those boys and men. Parents need to be in control of their children for proper sex education but how many parents do that nowadays.

We quickly forget that a child that is not trained today will soon become a threat tomorrow. If there is no proper regulation and oversight in place, these kids will continue chanelling their minds towards their biological urgencies instead of focusing on importance (education). If these are the kids America is looking at for her future then, we need to act sensibly and decisively by injecting some sensible regulations into such as this.

I know everyone is entiled to his opinions, feelings and emotions but here are my views with regards to "Plan B" policy:
If a 15years old had sex with her friend and she was so scared of pregnancy then recoursed to "Plan B", with a resultant effect of some other complications and God forbid something tragic happened to her – will that be a plus to her family and the country? I also see this as a way of enforcing abstinence among the younger kids, which is great!

Yes I know, I'm a bit conservative for my age but don't we all desire a great society where kids can grow a decent life, yet without compromising their values? For this great country to remain ever-great, we need to instill discipline in kids, acknowledge God as the founding father of this country and treat people the way we would want to be treated if positions were reversed. My experience with Chineese kids have taught me something about priority of value and also affirms the conventional saying that "there is time for everything" – there is a time to have sex and there is a time to focus on study. A 15year old does need sex rather she needs sex education and hard work towards her future.

America! Let's set the priority straight for our kids so they could live a great life after we are gone.

God bless this great country!

December 9, 2011 at 12:44 pm |

Yomi Olalere

If you don't agree with this, then I wonder what you would ever agree with. Those little girls should be running after their books and developing their skillful talent; not running after those boys and men. Parents need to be in control of their children for proper sex education but how many parents do that nowadays.

We quickly forget that a child that is not trained today will soon become a threat tomorrow. If there is no proper regulation and oversight in place, these kids will continue chanelling their minds towards their biological urgencies instead of focusing on importance (education). If these are the kids America is looking at for her future then, we need to act sensibly and decisively by injecting some sensible regulations into such as this.

I know everyone is entiled to his opinions, feelings and emotions but here are my views with regards to "Plan B" policy:
If a 15year old had sex with her friend and she was so scared of pregnancy then recoursed to "Plan B", with a resultant effect of some other complications and God forbid something tragic happened to her – will that be a plus to her family and the country? I also see this as a way of enforcing abstinence among the younger kids, which is great!

Yes I know, I'm a bit conservative for my age but don't we all desire a great society where kids can grow a decent life, yet without compromising their values? For this great country to remain ever-great, we need to instill discipline in kids, acknowledging God as the founding father of this country and treat people the way we would want to be treated if positions were reversed. My experience with Chineese kids have taught me something about priority of value and also affirms the conventional saying that "there is time for everything" – there is a time to have sex and there is a time to focus on study. A 15year old does not need sex rather she needs sex education and hard work towards her future.

America! Let's set the priority straight for our kids so they could live a great life after we are gone.

God bless this great country!

December 9, 2011 at 12:50 pm |

Dee

Someone needs to explain to me why it’s so important that 12 and 13 year old girls need to be able to go into their nearest Walgreen’s and purchase a morning-after birth control pill without any doctor’s care or parental approval! When it comes to my 14 year old daughter having access to an ‘over the counter’ contraceptive pill without my knowledge or approval, that crosses a line.

I am all for my daughter having access to birth-control but what I am not for is allowing her free reign in a pharmacy where she does not have to get any doctor’s assistance, parental approval or medical advice. Just imagine, your pre-pubescent daughter could just mosey into any drugstore, pop a morning after pill along with her M&M’s and return home just in time to catch the latest episode of SpongeBob Squarepants! What a country!!!

As usual, Progressives are mad (AGAIN) at President Obama because he apparently didn’t go to the mat to give girls barely out of elementary school over the counter access to this pill. Give me a break! As YouTube sensation Antoine Dodson would say…”now that’s just dumb!”

These groups claim that, adolescent girls “will understand that the product is not for routine use”. Yeah, I’m sure that’s the same thing they said about teenage girls buying diet pills over the counter too…until they started abusing them!

Can't wait to see what's next from the far Left, maybe over the counter vasectomies for my 10 year old son?

December 9, 2011 at 2:50 pm |

Howard

A doctor from France says:
"In France , the medicine is so advanced that
we cut off a man's testicles; we put them into another man, and
in 6 weeks he is looking for work."

The German doctor comments:
"That's nothing, in Germany we
take part of the brain out of a person;
we put it into another person's head, and
in 4 weeks he is looking for work."

A Russian doctor says:
"That's nothing either. In Russia we
take out half of the heart from a person;
we put it into another person's chest, and
in 2 weeks he is looking for work."

The U.S. doctor answers immediately:
"That's nothing my colleagues,
you are way behind us....in the USA, about 3 years ago,
we grabbed a person from Kenya
with no brains, no heart, and no balls....we made him
President of the United States , and now.......
the whole damn country is looking for work.

December 9, 2011 at 3:11 pm |

jean2009

As usual an off topic troll.

December 9, 2011 at 7:45 pm |

Howard

CNN and liberal democrats, like jean, are scared to death that Newt might run against obama. Even the biased media, and a BILLION dollars won't keep obama from looking like a complete fool, once Newt gets done with him. Obama, the liberal's sacred cow, has spewed way too much B.S. ... and, the American people are beginning to wake up to how much B.O. stinks !!!

December 9, 2011 at 9:18 pm |

1FreeWorld

This is so cool!

Check it out!

Definition of Troll from Lefty/Commie Wikipedia:

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4] The noun troll may refer to the provocative message itself, as in: "That was an excellent troll you posted".

While the word troll and its associated verb trolling are associated with Internet discourse, media attention in recent years has made such labels subjective, with trolling describing intentionally provocative actions outside of an online context. For example, mass media uses troll to describe "a person who defaces Internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families."[5][6] The "trollface" (pictured right) has become a well-recognized icon of Internet trolling. It was drawn by deviantArt user Whynne and uploaded to the site in 2008. Whynne claims that the drawing was an attempt at recreating a comic character named "Rape Rodent".[7]

NOW I KNOW WHY
ALL THE LEFTIES/COMMIES/
Soro's Based BASTARDizers of words to make us all believe we need to GO AGAINST OUR own BELIEFS,,,

END THEIR RESPONSES
WITH
the BIGGEST TROLL and most provoking
BUMPER
STICKER/STINKERer,,,

"""""obama/biden 2012"""""

The problem here is that none of the lefties fish...
WE CAN'T EVEN TEACH THEM TO FISH, let alone, how to Attract Fish to the HOOK....

I would like to suggest that Folks that are a little Right of COMMUNISM,,,
Just SAY
Another GAGA, or
We do not need another KARL,,, or
Another Hussiener,,
Another Monica Cigar SMOKER or Humidifier,,,

You know,,, to stop the Propaganda!

December 9, 2011 at 9:47 pm |

jean2009

I don't think Newtie is a problem...he lives in some deranged altered universe...before long he will self destruct.

December 10, 2011 at 11:53 am |

1FreeWorld

Definition of Troll from Lefty Wikipedia:

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4] The noun troll may refer to the provocative message itself, as in: "That was an excellent troll you posted".

While the word troll and its associated verb trolling are associated with Internet discourse, media attention in recent years has made such labels subjective, with trolling describing intentionally provocative actions outside of an online context. For example, mass media uses troll to describe "a person who defaces Internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families."[5][6] The "trollface" (pictured right) has become a well-recognized icon of Internet trolling. It was drawn by deviantArt user Whynne and uploaded to the site in 2008. Whynne claims that the drawing was an attempt at recreating a comic character named "Rape Rodent".[7]

NOW I KNOW WHY
ALL THE LEFTIES/COMMIES/
Zoro's Based BAS-TAR-Dizers of words to make us all believe we need to GO AGAINST OUR own BELIEFS,,,

END THEIR RESPONSES
WITH
the BIGGEST TROLL
and most provoking
BUMPER
Sticker / STINKERer,,,

"""""obama/biden 2012""""" Pepe LePew!

Are those folks going to draw any Fish????

December 9, 2011 at 9:55 pm |

1FreeWorld

The problem here is that none of the lefties fish...
WE CAN'T EVEN TEACH THEM TO FISH, let alone, how to Attract Fish to the HOOK....

I would like to suggest that Folks that are a little Right of COMMUNISM,,,
Just SAY
Another GAGA, or
We do not need another KARL,,, or
Another Hussiener,,
Another Monica Cigar SMOKER or Humidifier,,,

You know,,, to stop the Propaganda!

December 9, 2011 at 9:56 pm |

1FreeWorld

If I said, "I can bowl like the
Most-EXCELLENT COMMUNICATOR
President of the 57 States of America,,,

Did I just say I bowl like a Retard
by Substitution???

NOW THAT IS A GOOD QUESTION!

Q2:

If a RETARD challenged
Derr PRESIDENT and Most-EXCELLENT COMMUNICATOR
to a Friendly BEER SUMMIT at a Bowling Alley and
to a Friendly BOLW SUMMIT Game,,,

What would your,
Derr PRESIDENT and Most-EXCELLENT COMMUNICATOR,
Do?
Accept or
VOTE PRESENT like he has sooooo many times?

December 11, 2011 at 7:16 pm |

dave

yes, please keep fanning the birther flames... you're only working to get the Prez re-elected.
got no argument on actual policy?? no problem, we can always go back to the "he's a Kenyan n*gger" argument.

December 12, 2011 at 1:05 pm |

American

I don't always agree with Obama, but I think this was a smart decision on his part. It says a lot about our country that this is even considerred controversial. It's not like he's banning the abortion pill, he's just making sure its not next to the cough and cold meds in the store where anyone can buy them. Heck one might argue that some of the OTC meds ought to be behind the counter as well, or at least require some sort of ID like with tobacco/alcohol to purchase.

December 9, 2011 at 5:21 pm |

Handofdoom

3 reasons not to vote for Obama !
1-would ruined my life by voting for Obama.

2- there would be no one be nobody to blame but myself for lack of intelligence .

3- would be so incredibly stupid for my sorry lack of intelligence for voting for Obama !

December 9, 2011 at 7:38 pm |

Jim

So incredibly intelligent and articulate! Bet you rule over your basement kingdom with a firm hand.

December 11, 2011 at 2:35 pm |

jamesd

Ho Humm and Whoopie Doo fo the President–

December 9, 2011 at 8:53 pm |

Larry in Houston

the proper age should be 14 – I've got 3 girls at home – 12 13 & 14 and they all are sexually active – my 12 yr old is dating a 14 yr old boy – I constantly tell her, before she goes out with him, to make sure she's "protected" . I've met the boy, he seems like a good kid, but everyone knows that young kids will experiment, and /or have sex, it's just part of life. I restrict the 12 yr old to making sure she comes in at midnite, at latest. but the other 2, has a little more freedoms.

December 10, 2011 at 11:08 am |

jerry

he pulled the NLRB dogs off Boeing too....he is running for reelection. You will see him move to the right..in a ploy to remain in power. This guy really has no ideals..just narcissistic power.

December 10, 2011 at 2:04 pm |

Bryce

he is a flip-flopper
I am a staunch Republican and I think this was a dumb move by him.
I agree that it shouldn't be available to them, but don't do it in the name of science, do it in the name of allowing parents to be involved in their 12 yr olds sex life.

December 10, 2011 at 5:42 pm |

Jim

Between the Bigots, the TinFoil Hats and the American Taliban, it is a wonder anyone can say anything intelligent anymore. If I were a European or Canadian reading this drivel, I would think the world's most powerful country has gone off the deep end. Pres Obama made a decision to support his FDA's decision. Sensible and well thought out. Has nothing to do with race, or gun control, or his birth certificate. Ya'll need to get a grip.

December 11, 2011 at 2:34 pm |

1FreeWorld

Hey Jim,

The Constitutional Conservatives have been Laughing at
the Ist Lady and her Husband (the guy Occupying the White House)
for 3 years!!!!

The guy Occupying the White House is a Joke,,,
and the Whole World is Laughing
(after the Whole World is Watching,,,,
BTW they are Watching and Laughing, too,,, Laughing way too hard!)

The Deep END,,, hmmm,,,,
the OWS and ODC group....
Now that is really funny,
especially that the Unions, the USACommunists, and the Radical Islamists,,,,
are getting ready to Over Throw the USA???

Now that is really Funny, Jim,,,,

Seriouse Question: How are you tied into the DemocRATS?

December 11, 2011 at 9:06 pm |

steveo

Jim,
I agree the president's decision is the correct one. You really want to know what the world thinks when reading this "drivel"? They are thinking...I WISH I HAD THAT FREEDOM! Someone is a bigot, tinfoil hat, or American Taliban just because they disagree? I'll be the first to tell you, yes bigots do exist. We have the bigots who hate the president based only on his skin color and we have the bigots who love him based only upon his skin color! Thankfully they are in the minority! Perhaps a bigot is one who labels everyone who intelligently disagrees with this president a bigot!

December 12, 2011 at 10:20 am |

steveo

jean2009

Steveo You forget the home was affordable when the person purchased it; and it would have remained affordable if they had continued to have a job, the same pay, or good health; or if the interest rate or monthly payment had not ballooned. There are those who needed to relocate to a new job just when home values eroded to the point that the house they are trying to sell is no longer worth what it was when they bought it.
The five most frequent reasons that foreclosures happen is not because the person couldn't afford the home at the time it was purchased.
1. Job loss
2. Unexpected illness resulting in uninsured major medical expenses.
3. Adjustable rate mortgages that ballooned out of control in a market when the buyer's equity is not in ratio to what it was when the house was purchased. Leaving them in the situation of not being able to refinance.
4. Death of the spouse who provided the largest income
5. Divorce

Your view of the total situation is far to simplistic. Something I find endemic to far too many on the far right.
------–
You are now engaged in creative editing. If you read my posts in context, you will see I am talking about those who relied on creative financing to get something they could not afford. I am not referrencing those who suffered job loss, death, illness, or divorce. I used the term "mortgage trickery". One thing is worse than my simplistic view and that would be your creative editing to misrepresent what I stated!

December 13, 2011 at 10:54 am |

1600 on Twitter

No tweets found

About The 1600 Report

Go inside the White House and on the road with CNN's reporters, producers, and photojournalists. 1600 provides you with an ALL ACCESS PASS inside the gates and behind the scenes. CNN's White House team is unmatched in the news we break, the content we generate, and the sheer size of the team. But don't let this be a one-way conversation, send us news tips and feedback!

White House Words

OTR

Category: Thing

Some presidential movements are OTR, or off-the-record, to the public and press until the president's motorcade arrives at the previously undisclosed location.